What does the Bible Say about Premarital Sex?

[Mark Corbett]

Can you please explicate how to unpack, "... included in the sin of adultery." Does there have to be adultery, does adultery actually have to occur, and how is "adultery" defined, does there need to be coitus?
It would seem we have to have actual sexual intercourse for there to be sexual immorality or fornication ? I.e to be against the strictness of God's word.

For anyone following this discussion, the verse being discussed in the quote above is this one:

NIV Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Doug, if I understand what you are asking it is something along the lines of (to reword your question): "Might Jesus mean that if you are looking lustfully at a woman you are in danger of committing adultery because looking at her like that might lead you to have sexual intercourse?"

I don't think the verse can be interpreted that way. A key word to understanding the verse is "already". Jesus is not saying that you are in danger of later committing adultery, He is saying that you "already" have. This is equally clear in the Greek as it is in the English. It is certainly true that looking to lust might lead to even more sin. But that is not what Jesus says in Matthew 5:28. He says that looking to lust is ALREADY sin, specifically it is ALREADY adultery.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

For anyone following this discussion, the verse being discussed in the quote above is this one:

NIV Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Doug, if I understand what you are asking it is something along the lines of (to reword your question): "Might Jesus mean that if you are looking lustfully at a woman you are in danger of committing adultery because looking at her like that might lead you to have sexual intercourse?"

I don't think the verse can be interpreted that way. A key word to understanding the verse is "already". Jesus is not saying that you are in danger of later committing adultery, He is saying that you "already" have. This is equally clear in the Greek as it is in the English. It is certainly true that looking to lust might lead to even more sin. But that is not what Jesus says in Matthew 5:28. He says that looking to lust is ALREADY sin, specifically it is ALREADY adultery.

I am more thinking along the lines that "lust" is the word for "covet" and implies taking the object of desire from another, that the lust is of such intent that in the situation being considered "actual adultery" happens for sure ...
If we here think of "actual adultery," that means committing the act of sexual intercourse, I would think.

Your pointing to "ALREADY" leads me to point to "in his heart" ...
Is "adultery in his heart" actual coitus? Apparently not. So what is it, and how do we know we have committed it?
Do we think Jesus came to make the commandments more onerous, so if we even happen to keep our eyes focused on a woman for more than a brief glance .. ?
I suspect God made men and women for each other in the sense that a great SEX DRIVE was part of original creation, and not merely to be viewed as SIN ... It is such an (encompassing?) feature of our natures and I have come to think the very basis of spirit ... and if that is possibly so how does that relate to HOLY Spirit ?
What "makes the world go round," Mark? Just our stomachs?

If actual intercourse (coitus) is NOT the measure we must use, then how do we know when we have crossed the line? I think first we have to be straight on how to understand "adultery in the heart," is that for Jesus the SAME AS actual adultery - or simply something that might lead to it.
Is anyone who pages through a Playboy, for instance, an immense adulterer?
And consider a woman who flaunts herself in front of a guy - is she leading him to, even causing ADULTERY? (Adultery is still a nasty word, thank God!)
Him merely seeing her, that "act" of vision, being itself adultery, is rather a stretch.

In certainly situations half the time guys are COMMITTING ADULTERY, is that a better way of viewing things? Not many people think that - is that simply because no one takes Jesus seriously? Or is it rather a gross distortion of language?

Note the examples of "heart" things warned against before the "adultery" passage(s)... to give it context ...

 

[Mark Corbett]

Do we think Jesus came to make the commandments more onerous, so if we even happen to keep our eyes focused on a woman for more than a brief glance .. ?

I realize that we often type comments quickly and that they do not always come across as we intend. There have been comments of mine which could have been better worded. So please understand the following words are typed with grace.

The way the above comment is worded concerns me and even grieves me. You ask if Jesus came to "make the commandments more onerous"? This implies the commands of God are onerous to begin with. To our sinful flesh certainly they are. But to those who are redeemed, God's commands are a delight:

NIV Psalm 119:1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD.

NIV Psalm 119:16 I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word.

NIV Psalm 119:35 Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight.

 

[Mark Corbett]

I suspect God made men and women for each other in the sense that a great SEX DRIVE was part of original creation, and not merely to be viewed as SIN ... It is such an (encompassing?) feature of our natures and I have come to think the very basis of spirit ... and if that is possibly so how does that relate to HOLY Spirit ?

I think you are correct that God created most people with a strong sex drive and that this was part of His original design for people and closely related to His command:

NIV Genesis 1:28a God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

But, like many (all?) of our God given desires, they can be subverted from right desires to evil desires. Because of our fallen, sinful nature distorted desires have become the norm rather than the exception. Therefore, we read:

NIV Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

note: the word for "desires" in this verse is the noun form of the same word translated "lust" in Matthew 5:28

We are exhorted to flee these distorted desires:

NIV 2 Timothy 2:22 Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I realize that we often type comments quickly and that they do not always come across as we intend. There have been comments of mine which could have been better worded. So please understand the following words are typed with grace.

The way the above comment is worded concerns me and even grieves me. You ask if Jesus came to "make the commandments more onerous"? This implies the commands of God are onerous to begin with. To our sinful flesh certainly they are. But to those who are redeemed, God's commands are a delight:

NIV Psalm 119:1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD.

NIV Psalm 119:16 I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word.

NIV Psalm 119:35 Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight.

True enough.
Would you have said this, made this reply, had I said, "make the commands onerous," without the "more"?

IF Mt. 5:28 is to be understood the way you seem to, AND ANYBODY TOOK THAT SERIOUSLY, would everybody be wearing burkas and nobody socializing with any other families?
I find it difficult otherwise to see how at least half of all Christian men would not be fairly frequent adulterers. And given the present state of most people's understandings, MOST OF THE ADULTERERS WOULD NEVER? EVEN KNOW THEY WERE ADULTERERS?

What kind of SIN is that, that it might be difficult of even impossible to figure out if one sinned?
(I.e. you answered none of my questions.)
Thanks for your response though, Mark.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I think you are correct that God created most people with a strong sex drive and that this was part of His original design for people and closely related to His command:

NIV Genesis 1:28a God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

But, like many (all?) of our God given desires, they can be subverted from right desires to evil desires. Because of our fallen, sinful nature distorted desires have become the norm rather than the exception. Therefore, we read:

NIV Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

note: the word for "desires" in this verse is the noun form of the same word translated "lust" in Matthew 5:28

We are exhorted to flee these distorted desires:

NIV 2 Timothy 2:22 Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

"And the greatest of these is LOVE."

I wish for the pursuit of LOVE, especially, and tend to equate that with godliness.

I believe it is evil desire (like those of much youth - for sex (coitus and worse) that results in ADULTERY.
I think actual adultery is evil incarnate, and one should (as a preacher, etc.) EDIT: really be against ANY sexual intercourse outside of one's own marriage.

[I apologize - I lost the last part of this post "somehow" ...]

 

[Mark Corbett]

IF Mt. 5:28 is to be understood the way you seem to, AND ANYBODY TOOK THAT SERIOUSLY, would everybody be wearing burkas and nobody socializing with any other families?

I take it seriously. And, yes, that means I face a constant spiritual battle to control my eyes and my thoughts. Doesn't the Bible teach us to expect such constant warfare?

NIV Galatians 5:16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.

NIV 1 Peter 2:11 Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul.

As far as women wearing burkas, no, that is not the solution. I lived in a Muslim majority nation for 14 years. Women there did not normally wear burkas (as they do in some Muslim nations), but they did dress on average much more modestly than women in the US typically dress. Does this help with the problem of lust? Yes, some. Does it solve the problem? No. Men there were very lustful.

So, yes, I believe women should dress modestly. But that is not where the deepest root of the problem lies. It lies in our hearts. It is overcome through meditation on God's Word and filling our minds with His truths. 100% victory? Not for many in this world. But real progress which makes a real difference? Yes, by God's grace it is possible and it is worth the work.

But the danger of your comments is that some may (mis?)interpret them to mean we shouldn't even be fighting against sinful thoughts and sinful fantasies and lustful looking. I don't think that's what you mean to encourage, but I fear some could take it like that.

I find it difficult otherwise to see how at least half of all Christian men would not be fairly frequent adulterers.

Yes, I believe that in a sense that is true. Thus we need the amazing grace of God. We need constant grace and forgiveness. And we need Holy Spirit power to overcome sin.

 

[Cuddles333]

In order to grow out of Spiritual infancy the believer must study the words that came from the now dead language of the New Testament. The language being Koine Greek.
There were deliberate mistranslations into the English, and, unintentional mistranslations into the English.
I believe that Mt. 5:28 was, like a number of other words, a deliberate mistranslation.

The word lust mistranslated from the Koine Greek word epithumeo. The meaning is 'longing to own' to show off to others. It is used by the Apostle Paul when he quotes one of the 10 commandments; 'Thou shall not covet.
Due to this mistranslation, many Christians think the Koine Greek word in Mt. 5:28 is epithumia which does mean- 'longing for what is forbidden' concupiscence, lust.

So actually, Mt. 5:28 is a man wanting to own the pretty wife of another man.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Cuddles333, I think your most recent comment is wrong in a number of ways.

In order to grow out of Spiritual infancy the believer must study the words that came from the now dead language of the New Testament. The language being Koine Greek.

Although I was blessed with the opportunity to study NT Greek, and often use it when studying the Bible, I strongly disagree with the statement quoted above. I know MANY very godly, very mature Christians who have never studied the Greek language. Some of these have made many sacrifices for the sake of Christ. To make a blanket statement that believers will remain in "spiritual infancy" unless they study Koine Greek does not show their immaturity, it shows yours.

There were deliberate mistranslations into the English, and, unintentional mistranslations into the English.
I believe that Mt. 5:28 was, like a number of other words, a deliberate mistranslation.

No translation is perfect, but we are blessed with a number of excellent translations in English. Translations like the NIV, ESV, CSB, and others are very trustworthy. Your comment sounds more like a nutty conspiracy theory than a serious point. To claim that many Bible translation committees all DELIBERATELY mistranslated a well known verse of the Bible, and somehow kept this secret from the many thousands of committed Christians who have studied NT Greek, is absurd.

Tragically, that kind of talk might cause some uninformed people to needlessly doubt the reliability of the Bible which they own and read every day.

The word lust mistranslated from the Koine Greek word epithumeo. The meaning is 'longing to own' to show off to others. It is used by the Apostle Paul when he quotes one of the 10 commandments; 'Thou shall not covet.
Due to this mistranslation, many Christians think the Koine Greek word in Mt. 5:28 is epithumia which does mean- 'longing for what is forbidden' concupiscence, lust.

So actually, Mt. 5:28 is a man wanting to own the pretty wife of another man.

Like words in all languages, the Greek word epithumeo has a range of meaning. Yes, that meaning can include "to covet". But most words also have what might be called a "root meaning". For epithumeo that root meaning "to strongly desire" something. In some contexts this might mean to strongly desire something that is not yours, and so "covet" can be a proper translation. But epithumeo does not mean "longing to own" in all contexts. Here is an example where it clearly does not mean "longing to own":

NIV Luke 22:15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired (epithumeo) to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

Now, despite what I've said up to this point, I think that translating epithumeo as "covet" in Matthew 5:28 is not unreasonable. I think that "lust" is indeed a better translation in the context, but let's consider the option of translating it "covet". If a man sees a woman and "covets" her, 9 out of 10 times (or perhaps 99 out of 100) this "coveting" is going to be based on a desire to have sex with her. Or do you think it's likely a man wants a woman who is not his wife because she cooks better? So even if epithumeo was translated "covet", it changes the meaning of the verse very little if it all.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

In order to grow out of Spiritual infancy the believer must study the words that came from the now dead language of the New Testament. The language being Koine Greek.
There were deliberate mistranslations into the English, and, unintentional mistranslations into the English.
I believe that Mt. 5:28 was, like a number of other words, a deliberate mistranslation.

The word lust mistranslated from the Koine Greek word epithumeo. The meaning is 'longing to own' to show off to others. It is used by the Apostle Paul when he quotes one of the 10 commandments; 'Thou shall not covet.
Due to this mistranslation, many Christians think the Koine Greek word in Mt. 5:28 is epithumia which does mean- 'longing for what is forbidden' concupiscence, lust.

So actually, Mt. 5:28 is a man wanting to own the pretty wife of another man.

So how much coveting would rise to THE SIN OF ADULTERY?
A single thought - a constant thought ... ?


What about the, "already in his heart," part?

An actual act of adultery requires both some intent, some "in heart," and coitus. That is, one does not accidentally commit adultery.

So are there TWO PARTS,
and Jesus points to the "already in her heart" part, which is the necessary predecessor in the case of an actual adultery act.
And only exists as part of an actual adultery act.

I.e. for any adultery act there must be the "already in heart" part, and the act itself. Jesus pointed to one part of what is always a two part thing.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Cuddles333, I think your most recent comment is wrong in a number of ways.



Although I was blessed with the opportunity to study NT Greek, and often use it when studying the Bible, I strongly disagree with the statement quoted above. I know MANY very godly, very mature Christians who have never studied the Greek language. Some of these have made many sacrifices for the sake of Christ. To make a blanket statement that believers will remain in "spiritual infancy" unless they study Koine Greek does not show their immaturity, it shows yours.



No translation is perfect, but we are blessed with a number of excellent translations in English. Translations like the NIV, ESV, CSB, and others are very trustworthy. Your comment sounds more like a nutty conspiracy theory than a serious point. To claim that many Bible translation committees all DELIBERATELY mistranslated a well known verse of the Bible, and somehow kept this secret from the many thousands of committed Christians who have studied NT Greek, is absurd.

Tragically, that kind of talk might cause some uninformed people to needlessly doubt the reliability of the Bible which they own and read every day.



Like words in all languages, the Greek word epithumeo has a range of meaning. Yes, that meaning can include "to covet". But most words also have what might be called a "root meaning". For epithumeo that root meaning "to strongly desire" something. In some contexts this might mean to strongly desire something that is not yours, and so "covet" can be a proper translation. But epithumeo does not mean "longing to own" in all contexts. Here is an example where it clearly does not mean "longing to own":

NIV Luke 22:15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired (epithumeo) to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

Now, despite what I've said up to this point, I think that translating epithumeo as "covet" in Matthew 5:28 is not unreasonable. I think that "lust" is indeed a better translation in the context, but let's consider the option of translating it "covet". If a man sees a woman and "covets" her, 9 out of 10 times (or perhaps 99 out of 100) this "coveting" is going to be based on a desire to have sex with her. Or do you think it's likely a man wants a woman who is not his wife because she cooks better? So even if epithumeo was translated "covet", it changes the meaning of the verse very little if it all.

"Covet," or "desire to have sex with," which is it?

"Covet" means to covet, to desire to have as one's own.

So does the coveting MEAN this is an exceptional case of adultery? Not only "desire to have sex with," but also ? have as own wife?

SUPER DUPER ADULTERY, where mere sex is not enough, but there must be ownership of the desired?

Is that what Jesus was talking about?

 

[tdidymas]

In addition to the above, I would like to add one thing: Heb. 13:4 "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

In here, the term "bed" is a metaphorical and euphemistic term for sexual union. It is used in context with marriage. Some translations read "the marriage bed is undefiled." So it is saying that the sexual act in the marriage covenant is undefiled, which means that as long as the act is not defiled by something sinful, it is a holy act. This might be controversial, because Paul also wrote that a couple can abstain from sex for the purpose of prayer (then afterward 'come together' to avoid temptation), which might imply that sex can hinder spiritual connection with God.

Adversely, it implies something else very clearly, that outside of the marriage covenant, sexual union is defiled!

My personal application to this is: as far as I am concerned, a man who is unwilling to say "I do" to marriage vows for a woman doesn't have the RIGHT to sexual union with her (even if she invites him).
TD

 

[Mark Corbett]

So are there TWO PARTS,
and Jesus points to the "already in her heart" part, which is the necessary predecessor in the case of an actual adultery act.
And only exists as part of an actual adultery act.

I.e. for any adultery act there must be the "already in heart" part, and the act itself. Jesus pointed to one part of what is always a two part thing.

Before I respond further, I want to try to understand more clearly what it is that you are arguing for.

It appears to me that you are arguing that adultery always has two parts, or we could say two steps.

Step 1: A man sees a woman whom he is not married to and he looks at her and he has a sexual desire for her.
Step 2: He acts out on that sexual desire by actually having sexual intercourse with the woman.

Now, we know from experience in the real world that very often a man will be involved in "step 1" and not go to "step 2" with a particular woman he sees, whether it is a woman he actually knows or just a photograph or video.

Here is my question for you. Are you saying that in cases where a man only gets as far as step 1, that he is not sinning?

 

[tdidymas]

"Covet," or "desire to have sex with," which is it?

"Covet" means to covet, to desire to have as one's own.

So does the coveting MEAN this is an exceptional case of adultery? Not only "desire to have sex with," but also ? have as own wife?

SUPER DUPER ADULTERY, where mere sex is not enough, but there must be ownership of the desired?

Is that what Jesus was talking about?

The standard of grace is higher than the standard of law. Allow me to explain:

Law only requires a standard of ethical behavior, and does not address sins of the heart. But in speaking about the grace of God, Jesus addresses the sins of the heart, in other words, sinful desires. Example: IMO the term "covet" in the 10 commandments refers to a person's behavior. That is, "covet" is another word for "envy"; that is, if I were to covet my neighbor's wife, I would begin by flirting, with the idea that I would eventually seduce and commit adultery with her, and flirting would be the test to see if she would reciprocate the flirting. So then, flirting with a man's wife is a form of coveting.

But now, Jesus teaches us that adultery begins with desires, and the NT teaches us that God changes our desires from coveting to godly love. This is the covenant of grace, that faith in Christ leads to spiritual healing which leads to change of desire. Our desire to please God should become greater than our desire for sexual immorality. Of course, since sin remains in the body, temptations will continue to plague us. But Rom. 8 says we can "put to death the deeds of the body" by the power of the Spirit. This requires an ongoing practice of active faith in God.

Peter says it this way (1 Pet. 2:20-21) "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
TD

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Before I respond further, I want to try to understand more clearly what it is that you are arguing for.

It appears to me that you are arguing that adultery always has two parts, or we could say two steps.

Step 1: A man sees a woman whom he is not married to and he looks at her and he has a sexual desire for her.
Step 2: He acts out on that sexual desire by actually having sexual intercourse with the woman.

Now, we know from experience in the real world that very often a man will be involved in "step 1" and not go to "step 2" with a particular woman he sees, whether it is a woman he actually knows or just a photograph or video.

Here is my question for you. Are you saying that in cases where a man only gets as far as step 1, that he is not sinning?

Seems that is one possible understanding.
And that "he is sinning" by merely having a desire for sexual contact that is not the sexual intercourse of adultery, that that needs to be argued for.
Seems it certainly has immense consequences if that is sin, if the usual sexual attraction itself is a sin.

How would you characterize the SIN if there is such in the case of "only step one" or "the first step"?
Should it be called "adultery," and what does that do to our understanding of what is to be avoided? And what does that do to the understanding of "actual adultery," does that put it on the level of MERE THOUGHT?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Law only requires a standard of ethical behavior, and does not address sins of the heart. But in speaking about the grace of God, Jesus addresses the sins of the heart, in other words, sinful desires. Example: IMO the term "covet" in the 10 commandments refers to a person's behavior. That is, "covet" is another word for "envy"; that is, if I were to covet my neighbor's wife, I would begin by flirting, with the idea that I would eventually seduce and commit adultery with her, and flirting would be the test to see if she would reciprocate the flirting. So then, flirting with a man's wife is a form of coveting. TD

So then flirting with a man's wife is behavior, and not merely something of a the mind or heart. Is Jesus talking about flirting in Mt. 5:28?

Is it that "Jesus addresses the sins of the heart," or that he addressed the part of sin that is in the heart? THE SIN is actual adultery, but we are warned such coveting begins in the heart, comes from the heart (mind), but that does not mean such a "beginning" is anything more than a pre-requisite, and not the act itself?

 

[tdidymas]

So then flirting with a man's wife is behavior, and not merely something of a the mind or heart. Is Jesus talking about flirting in Mt. 5:28?

Is it that "Jesus addresses the sins of the heart," or that he addressed the part of sin that is in the heart? THE SIN is actual adultery, but we are warned such coveting begins in the heart, comes from the heart (mind), but that does not mean such a "beginning" is anything more than a pre-requisite, and not the act itself?

In Mat. 5:28, Jesus is referring to the desire, whether it be under the control of God or not. Here is an example: if my attitude toward women is that I see them as an object of pleasure for my conceited self, then my desire won't be under God's control, as I am committing a form of idolatry. So then if I look at an aesthetically pleasing woman, my desire will immediately go to envisioning her in bed with me. This is the lust that Jesus refers to as adultery (that is, psychological adultery).

But if God has healed me from this sin, then my thoughts and intentions are to respect women as children of God, then if I look at an aesthetically pleasing woman, my desire to please God, and my desire to respect her as a godly individual, will be greater than any desire for sinful adulterous thoughts, and will result in authentic respect.

Of course, the act of adultery would be worse than the imagination of it, since the act would involve enrolling someone else into that corruption of the mind. Furthermore, psychological adultery practiced often leads to the physical act. Anyone who weakens their moral compass in this way is bound to encounter a situation that sorely tries their commitment to the Christian ethic. Churches are full of people who prove this to be true.
TD

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The standard of grace is higher than the standard of law. Allow me to explain:

Law only requires a standard of ethical behavior, and does not address sins of the heart. But in speaking about the grace of God, Jesus addresses the sins of the heart, in other words, sinful desires. Example: IMO the term "covet" in the 10 commandments refers to a person's behavior. That is, "covet" is another word for "envy"; that is, if I were to covet my neighbor's wife, I would begin by flirting, with the idea that I would eventually seduce and commit adultery with her, and flirting would be the test to see if she would reciprocate the flirting. So then, flirting with a man's wife is a form of coveting.

But now, Jesus teaches us that adultery begins with desires, and the NT teaches us that God changes our desires from coveting to godly love. This is the covenant of grace, that faith in Christ leads to spiritual healing which leads to change of desire. Our desire to please God should become greater than our desire for sexual immorality. Of course, since sin remains in the body, temptations will continue to plague us. But Rom. 8 says we can "put to death the deeds of the body" by the power of the Spirit. This requires an ongoing practice of active faith in God.

Peter says it this way (1 Pet. 2:20-21) "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
TD

In Mat. 5:28, Jesus is referring to the desire, whether it be under the control of God or not. Here is an example: if my attitude toward women is that I see them as an object of pleasure for my conceited self, then my desire won't be under God's control, as I am committing a form of idolatry. So then if I look at an aesthetically pleasing woman, my desire will immediately go to envisioning her in bed with me. This is the lust that Jesus refers to as adultery (that is, psychological adultery).

But if God has healed me from this sin, then my thoughts and intentions are to respect women as children of God, then if I look at an aesthetically pleasing woman, my desire to please God, and my desire to respect her as a godly individual, will be greater than any desire for sinful adulterous thoughts, and will result in authentic respect.

Of course, the act of adultery would be worse than the imagination of it, since the act would involve enrolling someone else into that corruption of the mind. Furthermore, psychological adultery practiced often leads to the physical act. Anyone who weakens their moral compass in this way is bound to encounter a situation that sorely tries their commitment to the Christian ethic. Churches are full of people who prove this to be true.
TD

That is something new (to me, anyway): "psychological adultery."

"Desire for sinful adulterous thoughts," is that how far removed from ACTUAL BEHAVIOR, ACTUAL ACTION, "sin" has become?
Not only do we have to be worried about, "sinful adulterous thoughts," there is now the additional concern about adding and subtracting thoughts to come to a (hopefully positive) total?
NOW there is the desire for the bad desire, to be considered?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

But now, Jesus teaches us that adultery begins with desires, and the NT teaches us that God changes our desires from coveting to godly love. This is the covenant of grace, that faith in Christ leads to spiritual healing which leads to change of desire. Our desire to please God should become greater than our desire for sexual immorality. Of course, since sin remains in the body, temptations will continue to plague us. But Rom. 8 says we can "put to death the deeds of the body" by the power of the Spirit. This requires an ongoing practice of active faith in God. TD

"Sin remains in the body" ...
"BODY" suggests physicality, real actual things (actions?).

When St. Paul speaks of "the deeds of the body," surely he is not talking about some mere imaginings?

I suggest a "change of desire" that would be real and true, desire to please God replacing any desire for sexual immorality, might come from focusing on having desires for love, touching and holding and kissing with NO desire for sexual intercourse, and no possibility of doing the same because it would ONLY be done in the context of the "coming together" of God's people of love EXPRESSING LOVE. Truly spiritual healing. Actual holy kissing.
Real sexual loving, but no intercourse, no coitus. No flesh engendering deeds of the flesh.
"Putting to death the deeds of the body," by the power of the Spirit.
No nudity - keep your clothes on in church!
(And no perversion or perverty things of course!)
LOVE AND LOVE'S JOY.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Just discovered: Moral Compass would be GLORY.

There Is No Moral Compass Without God | Christian Forums